[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Sujata Singh And Another .... Opposite ... on 17 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:10:32
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.454 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
State of Odisha .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
Sujata Singh and Another .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Binoda Kumar Mishra, Adv.
(for O.P. No.1)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-07.04.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.04.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to
quash the order dated 27.05.2024 passed by the Odisha Human Rights
Commission in OHRC Case No. 356 of 2022, and to declare that the
deceased does not qualify as a "Covid Warrior" under the applicable
Government Guidelines, thereby disentitling the Opposite Party from
any compensation thereunder.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Page 1
(i) Sanjib Kumar Das, husband of Opposite Party No. 1 (Sujata Singh), was
engaged by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) vide letter
No. 32418/BMC dated 06.05.2021 to feed stray animals (bulls and dogs)
in the South Eastern Zone of Bhubaneswar during the COVID-19
lockdown period, for the duration 05.05.2021 to 19.05.2021.
(ii) The BMC subsequently passed a resolution in an emergency meeting
purportedly disengaging Sanjib Kumar Das from the assignment with
effect from 17.05.2021, making his last working day 16.05.2021. Whether
this resolution was ever communicated to him is disputed between the
parties.
(iii) On 17.05.2021, the very day of the purported disengagement, Sanjib
Kumar Das developed symptoms of fever and cough consistent with
COVID-19, and his condition progressively deteriorated with low
oxygen saturation. He was admitted to a COVID Hospital on 27.05.2021
and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via RT-PCR test. He passed away
on 03.06.2021.
(iv) Sujata Singh filed a petition before the Odisha Human Rights
Commission on 04.03.2022 seeking a declaration that her deceased
husband be treated as a "Covid Warrior" and prayed for compensation,
registered as OHRC Case No. 356 of 2022.
(v) The OHRC issued notice to the Collector and District Magistrate,
Khurda and the BMC, both of whom submitted reports along with
relevant records including the Government Guidelines on Covid
Warrior compensation vide Letter No. 17179 dated 20.07.2020, Letter
No. 17941 dated 29.07.2020, and Letter No. 22977 dated 08.10.2020, and
Page 2
records confirming the engagement and purported disengagement of
Sanjib Kumar Das.
(vi) After considering all material on record, the OHRC passed an order on
27.05.2024 holding that even assuming disengagement w.e.f. 16.05.2021,
the fact that Sanjib Kumar Das tested COVID-19 positive on 27.05.2021,
which is within 14 days of his last working day, brought him squarely
within the guidelines. The OHRC accordingly recommended release of
compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs in favour of Sujata Singh and other next of
kin, with 50% to be kept in a Fixed Deposit in a Nationalised Bank.
(vii) Hence, the State has filed the current Writ Petition, challenging the
abovementioned order of the OHRC.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The engagement of the deceased by the BMC was purely temporary and
informal in nature, limited to feeding stray animals during the
lockdown for approximately 13 days, and does not constitute "COVID-
19 related duty" as contemplated under the Government Guidelines.
Feeding stray animals does not involve direct exposure to COVID-19
patients, participation in pandemic management, contact tracing, or
healthcare delivery, and therefore the mandatory eligibility criteria
under Para-C of the Guidelines are not met in this case.
(ii) Under Para-C of the Government Guidelines, two mandatory
conditions must both be satisfied: first, the person must have been
drafted by the Government or its authorized agencies to perform
Page 3
COVID-19 related duties and responsibilities directly; and second, the
contact of COVID-19 infection must have occurred while in active line
of duty with the worker not being on any kind of leave. The proviso
further requires that the person must test COVID-19 positive within 30
days from the last day of active COVID-19 related duty. Since the
deceased was disengaged w.e.f. 17.05.2021 and tested positive on
27.05.2021, after cessation of his assignment, the infection occurred
outside the scope of active duty and there is a complete absence of the
required duty nexus between the work performed and the contracting
of infection.
(iii) The OHRC erred in relying purely on the proximity of dates to infer a
nexus between duty and infection. A policy prescribing specific
eligibility conditions must be strictly complied with and cannot be
relaxed on equitable or sympathetic considerations. The OHRC's
approach of treating temporal proximity alone as sufficient to invoke
the Guidelines is contrary to Para-C and legally untenable, as it
effectively reads out the requirement of infection occurring while in
active line of duty.
(iv) The death certificate relied upon by the Opposite Party does not
conclusively establish COVID-19 as the cause of death, as no specific
cause of death is mentioned therein. The causal link between the
engagement with the BMC and the death of the deceased has therefore
not been established even on a basic evidentiary level.
(v) The OHRC failed to appreciate the binding and mandatory character of
the Government Guidelines and misapplied the policy. The impugned
Page 4
order is arbitrary, contrary to the Guidelines, and suffers from non-
consideration of material facts, rendering it unsustainable in law and
liable to be quashed. The deceased does not fall within the definition of
a "COVID Warrior" under the Guidelines and the Opposite Party is not
entitled to compensation under the scheme.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The disengagement of the deceased is factually disputed. While the
BMC claims disengagement w.e.f. 17.05.2021 through an emergency
meeting resolution, there is nothing on record to show that this
resolution was ever communicated to Sanjib Kumar Das in the manner
in which he was originally engaged, namely through a formal written
letter. In the absence of communication of disengagement, the deceased
must be considered as having been in continuous engagement from
06.05.2021 onwards.
(ii) Even if the disengagement w.e.f. 17.05.2021 is accepted for the sake of
argument, the last working day of the deceased would be 16.05.2021.
Sanjib Kumar Das tested positive on 27.05.2021, only 11 days from his
last working day, which is well within the 30-day window stipulated
under the Mandatory Conditions of Eligibility in the Government
Guidelines. His symptoms manifested on 17.05.2021 itself, strongly
indicating that he contracted the infection while actively engaged in his
duty. His hospitalization on 27.05.2021 and death on 03.06.2021 are
directly traceable to this infection. The BMC's position that he is
Page 5
ineligible is therefore discriminatory and arbitrary with no legal or
factual support.
(iii) The work of feeding stray animals during the COVID-19 lockdown in
public areas constitutes COVID-19 related duty within the meaning of
the Guidelines, as the deceased was engaged by a Government agency
precisely because of the pandemic and lockdown conditions, during the
peak of the second wave when transmission was extremely high. The
entire family suffered: the deceased died, his mother-in-law also died
after coming into contact with him, and Sujata Singh herself contracted
COVID-19 and survived with great difficulty, leaving her alone and in
destitution as the deceased was the sole earning member. The OHRC
correctly appreciated all these facts and passed a well-reasoned order.
(iv) The Opposite Party also relies on the Supreme Court's order in Gourav
Kumar Bansal v. Union of India1, dated 30.06.2021, wherein the
Supreme Court drew inferences regarding consequential deaths due to
COVID-19, supporting a purposive reading of compensation eligibility
in pandemic-related deaths. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed
and the compensation directed to be released forthwith, with Sanjib
Kumar Das declared a Frontline COVID Warrior.
IV. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed before this Court.
Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7/2021, order dated 30.06.2021.
Page 6
6. The Odisha Government's Health & Family Welfare Department issued
formal notifications and corrigenda in July and October 2020 providing
ex gratia assistance of Rs.50 lakh to the spouse/next of kin of any person
who "succumb[s] to COVID-19 while in active line of duty" and "is drafted
by Government or its agencies to perform COVID-19 related duties,"
provided the person was not covered under the Central PMGKP
insurance scheme. In particular, the corrigendum dated 29.07.2020
clarifies that the beneficiary must have tested COVID-19 positive within
30 days of his/her last day of active COVID-19 duty.
7. These conditions are mandatory, the State may provide relief only to
those who satisfy all criteria set out in the government order
(Guidelines Nos. 17197/H&FW dated 20.07.2020; Corrigendum 17941/H
dated 29.07.2020; Guideline No. 22977/H dated 08.10.2020). The
notifications were duly published in the Official Gazette and carry the
force of governmental policy.
8. Before examining the eligibility condition, this Court considers it
appropriate to acknowledge the extraordinary circumstances in which
individuals described as "COVID warriors" rendered their services. The
pandemic imposed unprecedented strain on public systems, and those
deployed in the field, whether in healthcare, sanitation, policing, or
other essential functions, often worked under conditions of uncertainty,
risk, and personal sacrifice. Their contribution, in many cases, went
beyond the call of duty and merits the highest regard. At the same time,
the scheme in question has been structured with defined parameters,
Page 7
intended to extend its benefit to those engaged in duties bearing a direct
and proximate nexus with COVID-19 management.
9. Tested against this framework, the first mandatory condition, namely
that the individual must have been "drafted by Government or its agencies
to perform COVID-19 related duties," is not satisfied on the facts of the
present case. Sanjib Kumar Das was engaged by the Bhubaneswar
Municipal Corporation solely for the purpose of feeding stray bulls and
dogs during the lockdown period. While such work was undoubtedly
carried out in difficult circumstances and served a civic purpose, it does
not fall within the category of duties contemplated under the scheme,
which is directed towards activities intrinsically connected with
pandemic response such as healthcare delivery, containment
operations, vaccination, contact tracing, or essential services involving
direct exposure to infected persons. There is no material on record to
indicate that his assignment formed part of any COVID management
strategy or that it entailed interaction with COVID patients or related
operations. His engagement, therefore, remains in the nature of animal
management rather than pandemic-control duty, and lacks the requisite
nexus that the scheme mandates.
10. For example, in Satyabadi Dehury v. State of Odisha2, a constable was
held entitled only because his reserve office became a COVID
deployment hub, the Court noted that "there cannot be any iota of doubt"
that Mr. Dehury, who "died due to COVID-19 while on active line of duty,"
was covered by the notification. Likewise, in Ashok Patro v. State of
Page 8
Odisha3, a hospital pharmacist's duties were found to carry "inevitable"
exposure to COVID patients, supported by an official certification, so he
was treated as a "COVID-19 Warrior". In contrast, no similar nexus is
shown here. Mr. Das's work did not bring him into contact with COVID
wards or tasks; it was neither medical nor containment in nature.
Feeding stray dogs and bulls is not listed among COVID duties, and the
High Court's compassion in Satyabadi (supra) and Patro (supra) rested
on clear exposure to the contagion. In the absence of any comparable
connection, the scheme's first condition fails.
11. The petitioner (State) has rightly submitted that the policy is conjunctive
in nature, requiring both conditions under para-C to be satisfied. Thus,
while a person who succumbed to COVID-19 while discharging duties
in settings such as a school, hospital, or police reserve, and with a
demonstrable nexus to pandemic-related work, may fall within the
scheme, the present case stands on a different footing. The reliance
placed by the opposite party on a broader or purposive interpretation,
or on considerations of sympathy, cannot prevail over the clear and
express terms of the guidelines. This Court, while mindful of the
circumstances, is required to apply the scheme as it stands, and cannot
extend its scope beyond what has been expressly provided therein.
12. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the case of Bhavnagar University
v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd.4 held as follows:
"The statutory interdict of use and enjoyment of the
property must be strictly construed. It is well-settled that
(2003) 2 SCC 111, para 25.
Page 9
when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a
particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or
not at all. The State and other authorities while acting
under the said Act are only creature of statute. They must
act within the four-corners thereof."
13. The Court cannot strain language to include cases outside the express
scope. If this Court were to hold otherwise, almost any government
engagement during the pandemic could retroactively be deemed a
COVID duty, contrary to the policy's design.
14. The ex gratia assistance in question was conceived as part of the State's
response to an unprecedented public health crisis. In framing such a
scheme, the Government has necessarily drawn lines as to who would
fall within its fold and to what extent, keeping in view the demands on
public resources and the scale of the situation. This Court, while
examining a claim under such a scheme, does not sit in appeal over
those choices, but is required to see whether the case at hand fits within
the framework so laid down.
15. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Small Scale Industrial
Manufacturers Association (Regd.) v. Union of India5 have had the
occasion to consider in detail the scope of judicial review in such cases.
It held as follows:
"19. Government has to decide its own priorities and relief
to the different sectors. It cannot be disputed that pandemic
affected the entire country and barring few of the sectors.
However, at the same time, the Government is required to
take various measures in different fields/sectors like public
health, employment, providing food and shelter to the
Writ Petition (C) No. 476 of 2020
Page 10
common people/migrants, transportation of migrants etc.
and therefore, as such, the government has announced
various financial packages/reliefs. Even the 41 government
also suffered due to lockdown, due to unprecedented covid19
pandemic and also even lost the revenue in the form of GST.
Still, the Government seems to have come out with various
reliefs/packages. Government has its own financial
constraints. Therefore, as such, no writ of mandamus can be
issued directing the Government/RBI to announce/declare
particular relief packages and/or to declare a particular
policy, more particularly when many complex issues will
arise in the field of economy and what will be the overall
effect on the economy of the country for which the courts do
not have any expertise and which shall be left to the
Government and the RBI to announce the relief
packages/economic policy in the form of reliefs on the basis
of the advice of the experts. Therefore, no writ of mandamus
can be issued.
20. No State or country can have unlimited resources to
spend on any of its projects. That is why it only announces
the financial reliefs/packages to the extent it is feasible. The
court would not interfere with any opinion formed by the
Government if it is based on the relevant facts and
circumstances or based on expert advice. It is not normally
within the domain of any court to weigh the pros and cons
of the policy or to scrutinize it and test the degree of its
beneficial or equitable disposition for the purpose of varying,
modifying or annulling it, based on howsoever sound and
good reasoning, only where it is arbitrary and violative of
any Constitutional, statutory or any other provisions of
law. When Government forms its policy, it is based on a
number of circumstances on facts, law including constraints
based on its resources. It is also based on expert opinion. It
would be dangerous if court is asked to test the utility,
beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal based on facts
set out on affidavits."
Page 11
16. What follows from the above is that, in matters of this nature, the Court
must tread with some restraint. The scheme can certainly be examined
to see whether it has been properly applied, but it is not for the Court to
widen its scope or reshape its terms on equitable considerations alone.
The enquiry, therefore, remains a limited one, whether the case at hand
fits within the framework of the scheme as it stands, and not whether
the scheme ought to have been framed differently or made more
expansive.
17. The second condition under the scheme requires that the COVID-19
infection be contracted "while in active line of duty." The State has
placed on record that Mr. Das's engagement came to an end on
16.05.2021, pursuant to a resolution dated 17.05.2021. While the
communication of this resolution is disputed, even on the version of the
opposite party, the last day of active work would be 16.05.2021. It is also
not in dispute that Mr. Das developed symptoms on 17.05.2021 and
tested positive on 27.05.2021, thus falling within the 30-day period
contemplated under the guidelines.
18. This Court is conscious of the conditions prevailing during the
pandemic, where the precise moment or source of infection was often
difficult to ascertain, and the distinction between contraction and
detection of the virus remained uncertain. Even so, the scheme requires
a reasonable nexus between the infection and the discharge of duty. The
30-day stipulation provides a temporal framework, but does not
Page 12
dispense with the need to establish that the infection bore a proximate
connection to the assigned duty.
19. In the present case, although the interval between the last working day
and the positive test is relatively short, there is no material to indicate
such a duty-related linkage. The reliance placed by the OHRC on
temporal proximity alone, though understandable in the circumstances,
does not fully satisfy the requirement contemplated under the scheme.
20. In these circumstances, this Court is constrained to hold that the second
condition is not fulfilled, and the conclusion reached by the OHRC
cannot be sustained within the framework of the governing guidelines.
21. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the notifications issued by
the Government constitute a defined and self-contained scheme, which
the Court is called upon to apply, not reshape. The impulse to extend
relief in cases of hardship is both natural and compelling, particularly in
the context of the pandemic, where many acts of service went
unrecorded and many losses went unredressed. Yet, the scheme
represents a considered exercise of the State's responsibility, translated
into specific terms and conditions that delineate its reach.
22. To travel beyond those terms, even for reasons that evoke sympathy,
would risk unsettling the balance inherent in the policy itself and
introduce an element of uncertainty in its application. The Court must
therefore proceed within the contours of the scheme as framed,
ensuring that its application remains consistent, even while
Page 13
acknowledging that the human situations before it may sometimes call
for more than what the law, as it stands, is able to provide.
23. This Court is not unmindful of the human dimension of the present
case. The death of Sanjib Kumar Das during a time of widespread
distress and uncertainty is a matter of deep regret, and the hardship
faced by his family, particularly the Opposite Party No. 1, evokes
genuine sympathy. The Court acknowledges that his engagement,
though not falling within the strict contours of the notified scheme, was
nonetheless rendered in a difficult period when public life stood
severely disrupted. However, sympathy, however compelling, cannot
be a substitute for legal entitlement. The Court is bound by the
framework of the scheme as notified by the State, and cannot, under the
guise of equity, extend its scope beyond what has been expressly
provided. To do so would not only be contrary to settled principles
governing interpretation of policy schemes but would also unsettle the
uniform application of such measures.
V. CONCLUSION:
24. Applying the above legal principles, this Court finds that Ms. Sujata
Singh (Opposite Party No.1) has not satisfied the statutory conditions of
the COVID-19 ex gratia scheme. Mr. Das's work of feeding stray
animals was not a covered COVID-related duty, and his infection
occurred after his duty ended, lacking the required duty-connection.
Consequently, the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission
cannot stand.
Page 14
25. This Court must therefore allow the Writ Petition and set aside the
OHRC's order dated 27.05.2024.
26. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated 17th April, 2026/
Page 15
